Let's assume ...

[Torie]

Ah, if I am wearing my contoured AG jeans, that would prove that I am from the future. I would tell them to call AG in Socal. I think I would get their attention. I get paid to get attention sometimes. I have some practice.

[The Mikado]

Simfan, I like it, but you should remember that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was the planner of 9/11, not one of the actual hijackers, and KSM was still chilling in Afghanistan in 2001.

EDIT:  If people actually paid attention to me and I got credit for stopping 9/11, I'd waste my credibility on a big rant about regulating subprime lenders and reinstating Glass-Stegal etc. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd hopefully have them call over my dad and prove to him I am his son- which makes no sense as I am supposed to be 7.

Question to our scientists here:

Aren't there theories that if you meet your younger self in the past through timetravel, the whole timeframe collapses and the universe stops to exist ?

If the writers of Back to the Future are considered to be of scientific authority, yes.

[Insula Dei]

Some of you guys would have spent over a decade being waterboarded in Guantanamo by now.

[Erc]

Some of you guys would have spent over a decade being waterboarded in Guantanamo by now.

Of course.  In fact, some of the better plans probably end up with us getting shot by a police sniper by the end of the day.

[Simfan34]

My plan never did have me saying I was from the future publicly. But you cannot presume, as you seem leaning to do, that by preventing 9/11 something worse would happen. I only know what is, and what is is that 9/11 is bad. The thing about Today is that it's filmed outside at times, so I can shout there.

But what would I do afterward? I'm a high schooler with no records. I can't just walk up to my university and say "let me in" because I say they did 11 years in the future.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't see any plan that's remotely likely to succeed without getting myself detained or killed. Maybe launch a weak pre-emptive attack on the World Trade Center (like the 1993 bombing), so it gets evacuated and shut down before the planes hit it. Not sure how I would plan or execute that in one day, though.

[Mechaman]

My plan never did have me saying I was from the future publicly. But you cannot presume, as you seem leaning to do, that by preventing 9/11 something worse would happen. I only know what is, and what is is that 9/11 is bad.

But what would I do afterward? I'm a high schooler with no records. I can't just walk up to my university and say "let me in" because they did 11 years in the future.

Yes I know it didn't, which is why in scenario conclusion two I said "if you publicly say you're from the future".  However, and this isn't completely outside the realm of possibility, the government or the public could still somehow deduce you are from the future, even if you don't explicitly say you are.  Option 1 seems much more likely to happen, given that you somehow knew and that time travel is considered, like I mentioned earlier a "Messiah" like possibility.
Where I explicitly mention you, Simfan, I mention you getting past Security in NBC or whatever and warning people.  I don't say "and then Simfan says he's from the future."  Frankly, I find the whole episode where you just jump in front of the tv to be more likely to scare the sh*t out of everybody (including the host) and you are taken into Bellevue and medicated.  You would end up like Bruce Willis in the movie Twelve Monkeys.  Your chances of success would be much higher going to the authorities and claiming you might've heard of terrorist plotting to run planes into the Twin Towers.  If you really wanted to be successful, claim you were one of the terrorists plotting the Tower bombings.
In effect, the easiest way to prevent 9/11 in my mind would to become known as one of the great villains of it.
If you want to convince people the more honest way, it's going to take quite a bit longer than a day.  Maybe even ten days.

Also, the Holocaust was bad, how can I presume something worst could happen in it's absence?  What if, after preventing it, I ensure the dominance of Stalinist Russia instead?
I am not presuming something worst WILL happen, just saying it is a possibility.  You, on the other hand, seem to presume that fixing ONE bad event, absent the consequences, is worth it.
I got about a dozen more possibilites that could happen, not all of them negative, if somebody did warn people about 9/11.  I, knowing full well how far reaching the Butterfly Effects are, would keep my footprint on history as small as possible if I was time traveling.
Or if some smart ass points it out, I would stay out entirely.

Tell me, if your intent is good, and so are arguably your means, is it still worth it if the ends do turn out to be worse than what you had hoped for?  Arguably, you are already throwing out arguments that are found in Senior level college Philosophy classes, which is interesting.  This whole discussion of time travel and altering future events very well fall under these Means and Ends discussions that I very well enjoy.

This possibility, that by preventing one event it would rise to a dramatically more negative event is why, if I had the choice, I wouldn't alter history.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Short sell American Airlines stock.

I doubt that one individual (even if they could be verified that they were from the future), could prevent the attacks on such short notice. While your iPhone 4 is advanced tech, I doubt it'd be so exotic that you'd be granted an immediate audience with Bush.

[Tender Branson]

Short sell American Airlines stock.

I doubt that one individual (even if they could be verified that they were from the future), could prevent the attacks on such short notice. While your iPhone 4 is advanced tech, I doubt it'd be so exotic that you'd be granted an immediate audience with Bush.

Considering that people back in 2001 used to call with these kinds of phones:













... an I-Phone 4S is really futuristic !!!

[Simfan34]

Yes, they'd all be scared, but they'd hear me. Then I would be arrested, and I'd repeat what I'd say.

But ultimately, I'd be operating on the most likely option, that the US would probably continue onward in a significantly better state than with the attacks. One can apply Occam's razor to the situation and make the assumption the simplest event will happen. Already by being there you have changed history and your mere presence is likely to change it in innumerable ways. Again, it could be worse; the only way to avoid this is to end your own being, which is of course suboptimal. To me it just seems so much more logical to assume the most likely scenario would happen as opposed to constructing an combination of negative scenarios and then basing your choice on the improbable event any one of them would occur. Since I assume that a positive event is more likely to be the result than a negative event, I would act.

The thing is that, by that reasoning, we should let anything and everything happen to us, without reaction, because it could result in a worse result than would otherwise be. If you knew right now, that there was a bomb somewhere that would kill people, would you not act? The situation is the same, regardless of whether it is in the past or the present. I would try to prevent it, but by your logic you would not because the future might be worse.

[opebo]

Ah, if I am wearing my contoured AG jeans, that would prove that I am from the future. I would tell them to call AG in Socal. I think I would get their attention. I get paid to get attention sometimes. I have some practice.

Contoured jeans??? Don't tell me you're going around looking like this now:



And by the way, why are they 'attorney general' jeans?

[Mechaman]

Yes, they'd all be scared, but they'd hear me. Then I would be arrested, and I'd repeat what I'd say.

But ultimately, I'd be operating on the most likely option, that the US would probably continue onward in a significantly better state than with the attacks. One can apply Occam's razor to the situation and make the assumption the simplest event will happen. Already by being there you have changed history and your mere presence is likely to change it in innumerable ways. Again, it could be worse; the only way to avoid this is to end your own being, which is of course suboptimal. To me it just seems so much more logical to assume the most likely scenario would happen as opposed to constructing an combination of negative scenarios and then basing your choice on the improbable event any one of them would occur. Since I assume that a positive event is more likely to be the result than a negative event, I would act.

The thing is that, by that reasoning, we should let anything and everything happen to us, without reaction, because it could result in a worse result than would otherwise be. If you knew right now, that there was a bomb somewhere that would kill people, would you not act? The situation is the same, regardless of whether it is in the past or the present. I would try to prevent it, but by your logic you would not because the future might be worse.

You're arguing apples and oranges here.

There is a huge difference between knowing of an event that is about to happen and knowing about an event that is about to happen because you traveled from the future to stop it.  One event is an planned event you know about in advance that you don't know much about all of it's results, and the other is a plan you've seen happen with your own eyes but have taken the "load" option.

You have information beforehand to stop both of them, except one of them happened unimpeded before you messed with the flow of events.  To me, drastically changing the course of history that has already happened could cause changes beyond simply changing the course of the present.  The present is happening, the past has already happened.  Changing the past, something that has already happened, could have drastic consequence I'm not ready to handle.

Taken to a logical extreme, while I might not ever do anything and let things happen, your chain of logic would require continuously altering the future to make sure nothing bad happens.  In my mind that would require an insane degree of "do overs" that would make a normal universe impossible.  Why don't you go back in time and stop Adam from eating the Apple?

You're supposed to have the ability to influence the future, not the past.

Changing the past in a video game is one thing, changing it in real life is entirely different.

[Torie]

Ah, if I am wearing my contoured AG jeans, that would prove that I am from the future. I would tell them to call AG in Socal. I think I would get their attention. I get paid to get attention sometimes. I have some practice.

Contoured jeans??? Don't tell me you're going around looking like this now:



And by the way, why are they 'attorney general' jeans?

Lose your sig and I will tell you. I may even give you a photo. That is my price.

[Oakvale]

I wouldn't do anything. For all I know, the world would be much worse off without a 9/11.

[opebo]

...I am wearing my contoured AG jeans...

Contoured jeans??? Don't tell me you're going around looking like this now:



And by the way, why are they 'attorney general' jeans?

Lose your sig and I will tell you. I may even give you a photo. That is my price.

Seriously you don't like it?  Why?

Its just a pretty lady looking sheepish cause she ate her paste sauce with a little too much gusto.

[Simfan34]

Yes, they'd all be scared, but they'd hear me. Then I would be arrested, and I'd repeat what I'd say.

But ultimately, I'd be operating on the most likely option, that the US would probably continue onward in a significantly better state than with the attacks. One can apply Occam's razor to the situation and make the assumption the simplest event will happen. Already by being there you have changed history and your mere presence is likely to change it in innumerable ways. Again, it could be worse; the only way to avoid this is to end your own being, which is of course suboptimal. To me it just seems so much more logical to assume the most likely scenario would happen as opposed to constructing an combination of negative scenarios and then basing your choice on the improbable event any one of them would occur. Since I assume that a positive event is more likely to be the result than a negative event, I would act.

The thing is that, by that reasoning, we should let anything and everything happen to us, without reaction, because it could result in a worse result than would otherwise be. If you knew right now, that there was a bomb somewhere that would kill people, would you not act? The situation is the same, regardless of whether it is in the past or the present. I would try to prevent it, but by your logic you would not because the future might be worse.

You're arguing apples and oranges here.

There is a huge difference between knowing of an event that is about to happen and knowing about an event that is about to happen because you traveled from the future to stop it.  One event is an planned event you know about in advance that you don't know much about all of it's results, and the other is a plan you've seen happen with your own eyes but have taken the "load" option.

You have information beforehand to stop both of them, except one of them happened unimpeded before you messed with the flow of events.  To me, drastically changing the course of history that has already happened could cause changes beyond simply changing the course of the present.  The present is happening, the past has already happened.  Changing the past, something that has already happened, could have drastic consequence I'm not ready to handle.

Taken to a logical extreme, while I might not ever do anything and let things happen, your chain of logic would require continuously altering the future to make sure nothing bad happens.  In my mind that would require an insane degree of "do overs" that would make a normal universe impossible.  Why don't you go back in time and stop Adam from eating the Apple?

You're supposed to have the ability to influence the future, not the past.

Changing the past in a video game is one thing, changing it in real life is entirely different.

But the scenario assumes that I have been compelled to return to the past on this one occasion. Of course I would not go to the past perpetually and resolve its problems, because new ones would inevitably emerge. But because I have been sent there and am in position to better the world at the time, the comparison is valid and my actions would remain the same.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, I gave my sarcastic answer about the Novikov self-consistency principle, but here's a more serious answer about trying to prevent 9/11 on short notice:

If you want to tip off the authorities, and get them to take you seriously, then be sure to mention Zacarias Moussaoui, since they already had him in custody, and knew that he'd taken flight training, but didn't know why.  The authorities would presumably be astounded that you know who he is and the fact that he had flight training, and at least check out any leads you gave them.  Also, wasn't Mohammed Atta already on an FBI watch list or something, but they'd lost track of him?  If you say "Mohammed Atta is going to be on such-and-such a flight leaving from Boston", then you might be able to get them to intercept him at the airport.

I'd also mention the fact that the Taliban had assassinated Ahmad Massoud yesterday suggested that something was up, and they were getting prepared for an American military response.  In fact, if I was transported back to Sept. 8, I'd be sure to contact the authorities about the assassination of Massoud, so that when it happened, they'd listen carefully to anything I said.

Finally, another interesting tactic (assuming you don't care about being incarcerated yourself.....for example if you know you're going to be transported back to the present in a day or two) would be to call in your own bomb threats to each of the four flights to prevent them from taking off on time, and name Mohammed Atta as a co-conspirator.  Hopefully, that gives the authorities enough time to unravel the plot.

[opebo]

...I am wearing my contoured AG jeans...

Contoured jeans??? Don't tell me you're going around looking like this now:



And by the way, why are they 'attorney general' jeans?

Lose your sig and I will tell you. I may even give you a photo. That is my price.

Seriously you don't like it?  Why?

Its just a pretty lady looking sheepish cause she ate her paste sauce with a little too much gusto.

Ok, at any rate she is now gone, replaced by an artistic depiction.  Now show us your old ass in its form-fitting attorney-jeans, Torie.

[Mechaman]

Yes, they'd all be scared, but they'd hear me. Then I would be arrested, and I'd repeat what I'd say.

But ultimately, I'd be operating on the most likely option, that the US would probably continue onward in a significantly better state than with the attacks. One can apply Occam's razor to the situation and make the assumption the simplest event will happen. Already by being there you have changed history and your mere presence is likely to change it in innumerable ways. Again, it could be worse; the only way to avoid this is to end your own being, which is of course suboptimal. To me it just seems so much more logical to assume the most likely scenario would happen as opposed to constructing an combination of negative scenarios and then basing your choice on the improbable event any one of them would occur. Since I assume that a positive event is more likely to be the result than a negative event, I would act.

The thing is that, by that reasoning, we should let anything and everything happen to us, without reaction, because it could result in a worse result than would otherwise be. If you knew right now, that there was a bomb somewhere that would kill people, would you not act? The situation is the same, regardless of whether it is in the past or the present. I would try to prevent it, but by your logic you would not because the future might be worse.

You're arguing apples and oranges here.

There is a huge difference between knowing of an event that is about to happen and knowing about an event that is about to happen because you traveled from the future to stop it.  One event is an planned event you know about in advance that you don't know much about all of it's results, and the other is a plan you've seen happen with your own eyes but have taken the "load" option.

You have information beforehand to stop both of them, except one of them happened unimpeded before you messed with the flow of events.  To me, drastically changing the course of history that has already happened could cause changes beyond simply changing the course of the present.  The present is happening, the past has already happened.  Changing the past, something that has already happened, could have drastic consequence I'm not ready to handle.

Taken to a logical extreme, while I might not ever do anything and let things happen, your chain of logic would require continuously altering the future to make sure nothing bad happens.  In my mind that would require an insane degree of "do overs" that would make a normal universe impossible.  Why don't you go back in time and stop Adam from eating the Apple?

You're supposed to have the ability to influence the future, not the past.

Changing the past in a video game is one thing, changing it in real life is entirely different.

But the scenario assumes that I have been compelled to return to the past on this one occasion. Of course I would not go to the past perpetually and resolve its problems, because new ones would inevitably emerge. But because I have been sent there and am in position to better the world at the time, the comparison is valid and my actions would remain the same.

Well okay then, for this one occasion I wouldn't act when in normal everyday circumstances that don't involve time travel I would act.

See, it's independent circumstantial reasoning.  You can't apply one logic to every circumstance, like you did earlier with my reasoning on the flaw of altering something that's already happened.

[Simfan34]

But I wasn't.

[Mechaman]

But I wasn't.

Yes you did:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Simfan34]

I was referring to whether I'd prevent 9/11 if there (past) or report a bomb threat (present).

[Mechaman]

I was referring to whether I'd prevent 9/11 if there (past) or report a bomb threat (present).

Meh whatever.
Anyway, it's good to know you stand by your position on this issue, whether or not I agree with the stability or the possible paradoxes that might arise out of it.

[Torie]

I have a hot date tonight opebo. Later. Cheers.